Regarding teaching evolution

I suppose it's okay just so long as everyone remembers it was the THEORY of evolution, and still is. And also that when it was proposed by Charles Darwin he never intended the concept of natural selection to be a replacement for creation of the lifeforms in the first place. Natural selection, no collectively called "evolution" involves the modification of existing species to suit their new environments as those environments change. And creationists have no problem with that! It just is a testament to the dynamic nature of life, as it was – and I'm sorry if this ruffles your neatly evolved feathers – created. The bottom line for me is, go ahead and teach it as a possibility and a theory but don't present it as a proven fact or "proof" that the creator God doesn't exist. Yes I know the fossil record this and that, but all that proves is that the creature who looked like that once existed – what that existence "means" is simply a matter of human conjecture. It's not up to humans to try to prove that one way or the other.

I suppose it's okay just so long as everyone remembers it was the THEORY of evolution, and still is. And also that when it was proposed by Charles Darwin he never intended the concept of natural selection to be a replacement for creation of the lifeforms in the first place. Natural selection, no collectively called "evolution" involves the modification of existing species to suit their new environments as those environments change. And creationists have no problem with that! It just is a testament to the dynamic nature of life, as it was – and I'm sorry if this ruffles your neatly evolved feathers – created. The bottom line for me is, go ahead and teach it as a possibility and a theory but don't present it as a proven fact or "proof" that the creator God doesn't exist. Yes I know the fossil record this and that, but all that proves is that the creature who looked like that once existed – what that existence "means" is simply a matter of human conjecture. It's not up to humans to try to prove that one way or the other.

No, his theory is the "Origin of Species". That goes far beyond modification of existing species. And don't try to put something down by pointing out that it is a "Theory". That only shows that you have no understanding of the meaning of the word.

Evolution is an observed fact. The theory of evolution explains that observed fact. In the same way gravity is an observed fact. Newton's, and later Einstein's theories of gravity explain that fact.

I suppose it's okay just so long as everyone remembers it was the THEORY of evolution, and still is.

Yes. Like the theory of gravity.

Scientific theory - A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Note that it does not mean "wild guess".

Jenji wrote:

And also that when it was proposed by Charles Darwin he never intended the concept of natural selection to be a replacement for creation of the lifeforms in the first place.

Which is why evolution does not need to refer to abiogenesis.

Jenji wrote:

Natural selection, no collectively called "evolution" involves the modification of existing species to suit their new environments as those environments change.

There are a number of mechanisms included in the modern evolutionary synthesis, natural selection being one of them.

Jenji wrote:

And creationists have no problem with that!

Creationists tend to have a problem with reality as a whole. Which is why you will find that they don't just reject biology, but physics and chemistry also.

Jenji wrote:

It just is a testament to the dynamic nature of life, as it was – and I'm sorry if this ruffles your neatly evolved feathers – created.

Yes. It was created to evolve. And it does.

Jenji wrote:

The bottom line for me is, go ahead and teach it as a possibility and a theory

A SCIENTIFIC theory, yes. And currently the ONLY prevailing scientific theory in biology. So far no-one has put forward a better alternative.

Jenji wrote:

but don't present it as a proven fact

Science deals with facts and evidence, not "proof". Proof is only for math. Science needs the potential for falsification in order to successfully make scientific predictions, so NOTHING ever gets "100% proven". But scientific concepts CAN be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt.

Like the theory of gravity.

And evolution.

Jenji wrote:

or "proof" that the creator God doesn't exist.

Science makes no theological claims. Which is why many Christians also have no problem accepting evolution.

However creationists often have a problem with accepting reality if it conflicts with their religious opinions. Reality wins out. Every single time.

Jenji wrote:

Yes I know the fossil record this and that, but all that proves is that the creature who looked like that once existed – what that existence "means" is simply a matter of human conjecture. It's not up to humans to try to prove that one way or the other.

Actually the evidence demonstrates change over time. It is up to humans to try and figure things out. That's WHY science gives us things like computers and medicine. As for the fossil record what we find is that evolution makes successful predictions via the fossils based on evolution. When it makes scientific predictions it means it is scientific. And it means that it works. Like thus:

I suppose it's okay just so long as everyone remembers it was the THEORY of evolution, and still is. And also that when it was proposed by Charles Darwin he never intended the concept of natural selection to be a replacement for creation of the lifeforms in the first place. Natural selection, no collectively called "evolution" involves the modification of existing species to suit their new environments as those environments change. And creationists have no problem with that! It just is a testament to the dynamic nature of life, as it was – and I'm sorry if this ruffles your neatly evolved feathers – created. The bottom line for me is, go ahead and teach it as a possibility and a theory but don't present it as a proven fact or "proof" that the creator God doesn't exist. Yes I know the fossil record this and that, but all that proves is that the creature who looked like that once existed – what that existence "means" is simply a matter of human conjecture. It's not up to humans to try to prove that one way or the other.

Do you argue against other things that you clearly have no clue about?

I suppose it's okay just so long as everyone remembers it was the THEORY of evolution, and still is. And also that when it was proposed by Charles Darwin he never intended the concept of natural selection to be a replacement for creation of the lifeforms in the first place. Natural selection, no collectively called "evolution" involves the modification of existing species to suit their new environments as those environments change. And creationists have no problem with that! It just is a testament to the dynamic nature of life, as it was – and I'm sorry if this ruffles your neatly evolved feathers – created. The bottom line for me is, go ahead and teach it as a possibility and a theory but don't present it as a proven fact or "proof" that the creator God doesn't exist. Yes I know the fossil record this and that, but all that proves is that the creature who looked like that once existed – what that existence "means" is simply a matter of human conjecture. It's not up to humans to try to prove that one way or the other.

But, you DO believe that Moses rode in a boat with hundreds of animals on a lake of fire for forty years?

Statement on Evolution"Evolution, a foundational principle of modern biology, is supported by overwhelming scientific evidence and is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. Because it is fundamental to the understanding of modern biology, the faculty in the Biology Department at Baylor University, Waco, TX, teach evolution throughout the biology curriculum. We are in accordance with the American Association for Advancement of Science's statement on evolution. We are a science department, so we do not teach alternative hypotheses or philosophically deduced theories that cannot be tested rigorously."

"Question: Does the fossil record support the idea of biological change over time (biological evolution)?

Yes. The fossil record clearly indicates...

• a progression in complexity of organisms from very simple fossil forms in the oldest rocks (>3.5 billion years old) to a broad spectrum from simple to complex forms in younger rocks,

• that some organisms that were once common are now extinct, and

• that the living organisms inhabiting our world today are similar (but generally not the same) as organisms represented as fossils in young sedimentary deposits, which in turn have evolutionary ancestors represented as fossils in yet older rocks.

Mammals, for example, are prevalent today and can be traced back in the fossil record for approximately 200 million years, but are not present as mammals in the fossil record before that; however, fossil forms that have reasonably been interpreted to be associated with the evolutionary precursors to mammals are found in older rocks.

Whether biological evolution occurs has not been a matter of scientific debate for more than a century. It is considered a proven fact."

I get so tired of people always saying evolution is only a theory. To paraphrase Stephen Jay Gould, evolution is both a fact and a theory. That evolution has occurred has been proven by multiple lines of evidence. Even a casual examination of the fossil record can leave no doubt. Our admittedly imperfect understanding of how evolution occurs is the theory. The power of the theory is that it allows us to make predictions about facts we have not discovered yet and therefore opens up new lines for research. Sometimes, however, the new facts we discover do not quite match what we predicted from the theory. Then we either have to reconcile these new facts with the prevailing theory or throw it out and start all over. After more than 150 years since Darwin published "On The Origin of Species", everything we have learned about evolution has only improved our understanding of the fact of evolution.

When people reject evolution for theological reasons they are confusing separate aspects of human experience. Again I paraphrase SJG, but religion and science serve separate purposes in human society. Once we accept this, the controversy ceases.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.